To stabilise, or not to stabilise

[Pints]

As alluded to in the Sigma 1.8 thread, many lenses appear to be dismissed if they don't have IS.

I tend to leave my IS off in most instances anyway. Anybody else do this? Are you put off a lens (or camera) if it doesn't have a stabiliser of sorts?

It just seems photographers have become too reliant on it. It's like the ESP of cameras.

Or should I, as with ESP, just play it safe and leave my IS switched on?

[nellyleelephant]

Depends on the focal length.

I have four lenses, only the 300mm is stabilised, and that does come in handy!

[S47]

Never use 'IS' IMO you get poorer images with 'IS' on than with it switched off, it's certainly true with the Canon super teles when shooting small birds/mammals. The 'IS' is too slow in operation to be effective for action shots IMO. Plenty of others are gonna disagree.

[paul911]

It has to be IS off for me as most of my pics are on a tripod. If I ever do shoot hand held, then it's IS on, it definitely makes a difference to me.

[2slo]

IS is useful to me in low light hand held situations where, without it, I wouldn't have gotten the shot. In good conditions (reasonable light) I usually turn the IS off as the AF locks faster without it. The faster the shutter speed, the less the need for IS hence lenses such as the Canon 400mm f/5.6 don't really need IS when used for their primary purpose, birds in flight.
Although I've yet to try one, the latest Canon super tele's with 3 stage IS are supposed to be very good. The 3rd stage only switches the IS on at the point of pressing the shutter button so, in theory, you get the AF speed of a lens with IS off and the image result of having it on. The only downside is that prices start at £5k for a 300mm f/2.8 L IS II.

[RobDickinson]

I quite like IS. Its a useful tool. Enjoyed having it on the 17-55 and helped me get rather long shutter shots at times.

I now have lenses that cover between 17 and 400mm and none have IS. D'oh. But I get by.

[Mr Will]

I'm not sold on the benefit of IS. I find subject motion becomes a problem before camera shake does, but then I'm not shooting large telephotos at the moment.

Watching this thread with interest though. I suspect my next lens will be a 70-200mm f4 and I'd like to know what makes the IS version worth several hundred pounds more!

[Pints]

RobDickinson said:

But I get by.

Photographic understatement of the decade.

[Pints]

Mr Will said:

I'm not sold on the benefit of IS. I find subject motion becomes a problem before camera shake does, but then I'm not shooting large telephotos at the moment.

Watching this thread with interest though. I suspect my next lens will be a 70-200mm f4 and I'd like to know what makes the IS version worth several hundred pounds more!

Completely agree. The HalfPints move too quickly when playing indoors for me to take a decent shot, and only the 50mm 1.8 comes close at the moment. Perhaps playing with the camera more and I'll learn how to compensate.

[nellyleelephant]

Mr Will said:

I'm not sold on the benefit of IS. I find subject motion becomes a problem before camera shake does, but then I'm not shooting large telephotos at the moment.

Watching this thread with interest though. I suspect my next lens will be a 70-200mm f4 and I'd like to know what makes the IS version worth several hundred pounds more!

I have the non IS 70-200 f4 and it's perfectly usable, even my 8 year old nephew managed ok with it....as long as shutter speed are kept up obviously!

[markmullen]

It depends what I'm doing.

My 100-400 is IS, quite handy for handholding at long focal lengths, my 24-105 is IS which is good as I use that as a walkabout, when on holiday for example, when it comes in useful.

The rest of my lenses aren't, the only one where it could be handy is my 135mm f2, but as that is the sharpest lens I own I wouldn't want anything to detract from that.

[DibblyDobbler]

Mr Will said:

I'm not sold on the benefit of IS. I find subject motion becomes a problem before camera shake does, but then I'm not shooting large telephotos at the moment.

Watching this thread with interest though. I suspect my next lens will be a 70-200mm f4 and I'd like to know what makes the IS version worth several hundred pounds more!

I *think* the f4 IS has better glass doesn't it ? It's not just IS that differentiates them.

[markmullen]

DibblyDobbler said:

I *think* the f4 IS has better glass doesn't it ? It's not just IS that differentiates them.

It is sharper, and has weathersealing which the non IS models don't

[RobDickinson]

Note the Canon super tele's are the sharpest lenses in the lineup and have IS. And the 70--200mk2 kills tho others also....

[Ollerton57]

It's not just used for the shot. When using a tele, it can be much easier to compose if you have IS on, as without the view finder can jump all over the place. That's what I find anyway...

[RobDickinson]

In lens stabilisation also helps the focus system keep lock.

Though when working it can produce some less pretty bokeh

[Pints]

RobDickinson said:

In lens stabilisation also helps the focus system keep lock.

Though when working it can produce some less pretty bokeh

I didn't know this - thanks.